Cameron fights to make himself heard over grim echoes of Iraq

In a marathon debate which stretched late into the evening ahead of last night’s crunch vote, politicians from all parties lined up to warn of the possible consequences of launching missile strikes against the Assad regime.

David Cameron had recalled Parliament from its summer recess for yesterday’s emergency session, and led the debate with an impassioned and persuasive speech in which he made the case for “humanitarian intervention” following last week’s chemical weapon attacks in Syria.

But conscious of polls indicating public opposition to British action, the Prime Minister felt compelled to repeatedly stress the differences between the situation in Syria and Iraq a decade ago.

“I am deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts and, in particular, of the deep concerns in the country caused by what went wrong with the Iraq conflict in 2003,” Mr Cameron said.

“However, this situation is not like Iraq. What we are seeing in Syria is fundamentally different.

“We are not invading a country. We are not searching for chemical or biological weapons.”

Mr Cameron stressed that US President Barack Obama had opposed the Iraq war, and implicitly blamed former Prime Minister Tony Blair for the British public’s opposition to intervention.

“The well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode,” he said.

But the Prime Minister failed to persuade many of the sceptics on his own back benches, who questioned the validity of the intelligence being placed before them.

David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden, led the Conservative calls for further evidence – invoking Mr Blair’s so-called “dodgy dossier” on Iraq.

“We must consider, given where we’ve been before in this House, that our military intelligence as it stands might just be wrong – because it was before,” the East Yorkshire MP said. “We’ve got to be very, very hard in testing it.”

Mr Davis said the assertion that the Assad regime had been responsible for the attacks was only one of “three possibilities”.

“It could have been done by a rogue or panicky unit in the Syrian army, without Assad’s knowledge,” he suggested.

“Or it could have been done by the Syrian rebels, with the direct aim of dragging the West into the war. These are the only people who actually have a clear motive that fits this crime.”

His analysis was challenged by fellow Tory Bernard Jenkin, who said it was “impossible” that the Syrian rebels had the capacity to undertake such an attack.

“And do we honestly think our own security services have not learnt the lessons of Iraq?” Mr Jenkin asked. “Shouldn’t we have faith in these devoted public servants, instead of joining the post-Iraq panic that is paralysing this country?”

“It’s not a question of panic,” Mr Davis responded. “It’s a question of getting the facts right before you act.”

Jack Straw, who was Foreign Secretary when the UK joined the US in attacking Iraq a decade ago, said the 2003 conflict had raised the bar on the quality of intelligence demanded by the public to justify military intervention.

“Iraq has made the public much more questioning, more worried about whether we put troops in harm’s way, especially where intelligence is involved,” he said.

Insisting the Government has “yet to make the case” for intervention, he warned: “We all know – I have the scars – how easy it is to get into military action, and how difficult it is to get out of it.”

But Sir Malcolm Rifkind, another former Foreign Secretary who now chairs the Commons intelligence and security committee, warned that a failure to act would leave President Assad with the belief he could use chemical weapons with impunity.

“At this very moment, the Assad regime in Damascus are watching very carefully to see whether they will get away with what they have done,” Sir Malcolm said.

“If we do not make that effort to punish and deter, these actions will continue.”

Meg Munn, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, said the West “can and must intervene”, given the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

“We should have been having this debate two years ago,” she said. “We should have been doing something two years ago. The Assad regime wants to win, whatever it takes in lives and misery.

“Are we really going to continue to sit on the sidelines, wringing our hands?”

Comment: Page 12; ghost at the feast: Page 13.